My un-scholarly opinion is that chant is the most naturalistic music we have in the West, and the instrument it uses - the human voice - is itself naturally dynamic.

Also, it makes sense to me, since chant is music, to sing it musically. Dynamics is an unavoidable part of that. In my limited experience it's more typical to pay attention to the rise/fall inside a single phrase, but I don't believe there's any essential difference between shaping one phrase and shaping a group of phrases as long as it feels natural, tasteful, and not abrupt - I can imagine that easily getting out of hand. A little here, a little there.

It is unthinkable that every last neume should be sung at the precisely identical volume.
This would be impossibly boring, as boring as monotonic speech.
Like speech, chant is language.
It breathes and expresses itself just as speech does.

“THE LIGHTNESS OF HIGH NOTES

Here, to is a principle to which there can be practically no exception. This simple device, as musicians themselves have noticed, contributes greatly to giving the chant a religious character, so much does it imply the effacement of the person, the self, before Him to whom and for whom one is singing.

But if should be understood that I refer to lightness, not to weakness, the two are very different. Beware especially of singing a top note mezzo-forte like a soft murmur. This top note is usually the true centerpoint, the keystone of the edifice, towards which everything tens. It should, therefore, be approached with a crescendo,as if it were to be sung with strength. It is only at the precise of moment of emission that the voice, instead of attacking it loudly, harshly, materially, alights on it with gentleness and with some restraint, while allowing it to retain its full mellowness.”
-Dom Joseph Gajard, The Solesmes Method, (Minnesota, Collegeville, 1960)

Even though Dom Gajard beautifully elucidates us about the singing of high notes softly, it is very difficult for most singers to accomplish. This is because of an out of balance registration. Due, usually, to a lack of development of the upper register. Singing a “hooty” sounding 5 note scale on the “pure falsetto” for a few minutes a day for several months can help to correct this problem. One should not sing in “pure falsetto” for more than a few minutes because it can be the cause of vocal fatigue.

There are, to be sure, quite a few people who sing their chant every note of equal value and of uniform volume - and then they wonder why nobody likes chant.
Their poor people, understandably, don't like what they heard, but what they heard wasn't chant!

However, we have now had a complaint from someone who maintains that chant should be sung at a uniform volume.

WARNING: Rant follows.
Typically, there is a reason why the one doing the complaining is not leading the choir in the first place, whether the complainer is a choir member or simply a member of the congregation. The correct response is "when you lead your choir, you are free to make those interpretational decisions in the way you think best."

I've heard a lot of different concepts of chant in my time. First time I've heard that. I know there are some people who would argue (regardless of who is leading a given choir) "they wouldn't have done it that way in the XYZ century."

A) For myself, personally, I'm not trying to do something as it was done in the XYZ century. Liturgy is a living expression of the Faith. I'm trying to do my best in the now. Period. Not after an ivory tower concept.
B) For chant in particular, while there are different theories about what was done, there is more that we don't know than what we do (as with so many areas of human endeavor). I think it is particularly difficult to draw universal conclusions given regional differences. Regardless... refer to point A.

The rant is now over, and we return you to regularly scheduled programming commenting. :)

Forunately no one has attempted vibrato as yet.
Thanks for these helpful and encouraging comments. We'll continue as we are doing, i.e. doing what appears to come naturally.
I wonder if the original complainant was thinking that as it is Lent we should be singing in a suitably penitential, and therefore monotonous manner? (trying to be charitable here).

There is an obvious difference between vibrato and wobble, the latter of which is mostly what is "naturally" possessed. And there's absolutely nothing unhealthy about straight tone.

As choir Master, I have 2 remarks.
- Three times in this Sanctus, you have the same motive (c-d-e-f-d-c). the accentuation is on the first c (longer note, used to "launch" the curb whose highest (f) is very light and aerial. There is no reason to sing the "Hosanna" louder than the "sabaoth".
- Then, regarding the complaint, please consider it as suggested by Incardination !

Enjoy next week !

I feel compelled to weigh in on the matter of "straight tone" which is a term (phrase?) that may actually mean several things. In many cases there are some problems with it. The most functionally efficient use of the human voice will always produce a degree of vibrato. However, this will not necessarily be the full Brahmsian or Verdian vibrato of the 19th century operatic variety. Certainly one would not want this sound in polyphonic choral music of the Palestrina/Vittoria era, for example. However, the singing of what is, I think, desired by the advocates of straight tone is a sound that avoids the excesses of the pseudo operatic singer whose vibrato encompasses a full tone or more and whose volume is often poorly controlled. The functionally free voice will have a vibrato that can be controlled. Unfortunately, many choral directors ask for a straight tone from singers who haven't the skill level to do this. The result is that the singers, especially sopranos, fatigue early and the outcome is consistent flatting. Listen and hear it for yourselves; it doesn't take too many measures of singing to produce this fatigue.

We can elaborate on this sometime later, if anyone is interested.

I was taught that the text and the rise and fall (arsis and thesis) determined the dynamic dimension to plainchant. This naturally grows out of a flexible and text oriented performance of the singers. When it happens, it' a magical thing and is most expressive.

I have sat suffered through two hour rehearsals conducted by expert 'Solesmes method' choirmasters. In all that time much time and effort was spent on performing a salicus and other such niceties just so, without a word spoken about words, diction, and text.

Unfortunately, I have, likewise, heard semiologist scholars spend an entire lecture or rehearsal refining the just so performance of quilismas a la Cardine and other such niceties without a word spoken about text, diction, vowels, consonants, or blend.

I have sat through vespers sung by a 'schola cantorum' at a certain nearby co-cathedral
in which every last word and syllable was sung at a mercilessly consistent moderately slow metronomic beat in an unyieldingly uniform volume for e-ve-ry-last-syl-la-ble. One-did-n't-know-whe-ther-to-laugh-or-to-cry - - - or-to-run-screa-ming-down-the-street..

Imagine the following spoken as Jackson describes.

To be, or not to be, that is the question..
Whether 'tis nobler ……


Or, try this:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Or...

Out! Out, damned spot!
[examples could be multiplied]

True, Ralph -
That and more!
Most people other than semiologists tend to pretend that the Roman letters do not exist - either that or that they are some arcane scribbles that couldn't possibly have a bearing on how a given passage is to be performed (or how they wish to perform it).
(Chant a thousand or fifteen hundred years ago must indeed have been a colourful [if not downright exciting] affair - replete with 'word painting' that we would find astonishing.)

Chant a thousand or fifteen hundred years ago must indeed have been a colourful [if not downright exciting] affair - replete with 'word painting' that we would find astonishing.

Gee. Are you telling us that Chant is music, performed as such?

That is precisely why anyone who attempts to sing or teach Chant without knowing the Latin (or at least having a very good translation available) simply cannot do the job well.

I've also noticed that on just about every performance I have heard (live or recorded) which is 'accompanied' by the organ, that this accompaniment has the tendency to flatten out the volume of the chant so that it becomes monotonic or almost so - not to mention 'euthanise' the chant's rhythm to a molasses-like flow. The result is a saccharine parody of once red-blooded chant. Proponents of accompanied chant like to say that the organ isn't heard and is just there to support. Well, of course, if it isn't heard it can't very well support and isn't needed in the first place!; further, it very well is heard and keeps the chant at a more or less uniform (straight jacketed) volume and tempo.

This all makes no difference to those who love to accompany chant. For them the chant just isn't chant unless it's accompanied. For them something is missing if they don't get to hear and/or perform their favourite accompaniment style. Consequently, the chant mustn't drown out the 'unheard or 'unobtrusive' accompaniment.

Of course, there are those who like to point out the history of 'accompanied chant' - you know, serpents and all that. I imagine that these instruments had the same quietening effect on the chant as do modern organ versions. Everything that was done at some point in history isn't necessarily commendable. We are supposed to be restoring chant with the help of modern scholarship, not rehashing the ways in which it was debased and corrupted in past centuries.

I really like more fluidity. The example above feels unnatural and stiff to me. Here's a different kyrie, but in a style I find much more singable, or song-like. Your mileage may vary. https://youtu.be/9FN9JZgJUtM

toddevoss, Chris GZ has it. Some of the music--particularly the long melismas--can be thought of as 'filigree', a light & decorative addition to the meat/potatoes of the basic melody. Thus, the 'filigree' is sung differently than, say, the "...et unam, sanctam, Catholicam,..." of Credo III.

Or look at Kyrie XI. The melisma on "e" of "Kyrie" and "Christe" should make you think of a chickadee flitting towards, and returning from, Heaven, not of the Russian Army tramping through Hungary.

Dad29- thanks that is helpful (as was Chris). And yes Kyrie XI is a good example because I am familiar with it. Flitting is better than tramping but remember we PIPS tend to wear boots and have trouble with our wings. :-)

Toddevoss,

If you can get today's Propers, consider a few points.

1) In the Introit's first phrase, "Quasi modo geniti infants, Alleluia", there are many repeated notes. To sing this unmusically, treat each one of those repeated notes identically.

2) In the first Alleluia, the repeated parts in the Alleluia (in the jubilus) should not be sung as if each note has an ictus. Any leap of a 5th (and they're all over the place in this Alleluia) is the equivalent of bringing out the trumpets as a way of showing that this is important. Neither pitch should be hammered in the 5th. The word praecedam is almost entirely in an upper register. To sing this as if one were chiseling away at a granite surface would be to do an injustice to it. Ideally, I think, it should be all sung on one breath.

3) I tell a voice/theory student I have not to "climb" to the higher pitches, but to soar.

4) The word "Alleluia" can be treated in many different ways: in the Communion antiphon, for example, the first alleluia after "fidelis" begins on an ictic note in a group of three; the second alleluia begins on a non-ictic last-of-three (a weak up-beat).

IF we sing these without sensitivity to these little differences, we take a beautiful, colorful collection of pieces and render them black-and-white and less beautiful.

Charles,
I've never been to Clear Creek, so I'm asking a question I don't know the answer to, already.

Was the distracting or overpowering part the fact of the accompaniment or the manner in which the accompaniment occurred?

CharlesSA -

Since you have been at Clear Creek in the last few years you may very well know Bro. Brynach (Sawyer) Sellers. He has been active teaching music in Houston and is/was a member of Walsingham. He is very gifted musically (sings tenor and alto/counter tenor) and reportedly piqued the interest of the musical establishment at Clear Creek for some desired advice, leadership, and tutelage. If you have met him you know him to be very devout and a sterling fellow. Just a few months ago he returned to Clear Creek with intent to remain there.

To reiterate what someone said early in this discussion: Chant is music. Sing it like it's music. For twelve minutes, set aside any notion of what chant ought to sound like, and compare these three recordings of Credo I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bnLZqa0SzY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjlZCmebB0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ8-TpTXvxo

Which do you find to be the most musical? The most expressive? The most beautiful?
There's a good chance your answer is the same for all three questions. None of these ensembles simply hammers out notes; there is nuance and finesse in each of the recordings, but they don't sound identical in terms of interpretation. It doesn't sound like the same choir singing in a different acoustic, switching to a different style of Latin pronunciation, or penciling a few extra rhythmic markings in their books.

Thanks for all the replies - very educational and helpful to the extent I could understand them. Videos are most helpful. I do have a question since the focus shifted a bit to unaccompanied vs accompanied with a seeming consensus "thumbs down" on accompanied chant. I would assume that "parish chant" is accompanied in the normal course for the ordinaries where the congregation joins the chant. Is that incorrect?

Yes, but one can make sure the solo singer doesn't darken the door at your place again.

Chris,

For me, the distracting/overpowering thing was probably a little bit of both, but really it is just an intellectual struggle. To me it is better to understand the chant in itself, and in my mind it is impossible (or at best, very difficult) to hear the chant as it should be heard when there is accompaniment - no matter how the accompaniment is done - because one's ear is then drawn more toward the harmony than the melody and text itself. It seems accompany/harmony is nothing more than a concession to our modern ears - chant is beautiful in itself and does not need any "ornamentation."

Regarding the manner it is done at Clear Creek, as I mentioned above, it is actually done in the least unobtrusive manner which I have heard. It is not extremely loud (though still too loud for my preference, and was objectively so when I had to stand right near the organ in choir), and does not focus on tons of chord changes, keeping changing bass notes to a minimum - so in short, compared to some other methods, not extremely distracting to one's ears. (Yet, again, too much/distracting for me personally.)

MJO - Yes, Br. Sellers entered Clear Creek his first time 3 1/2 months after I entered my first time. He is on his third try; I also gave it three tries! - As did someone I entered with the very first time, who just left this past week for the last time. Anyway, yes, definitely very musically gifted. I do not know what he has been like the past three or so months since he (re-re-)entered. His first two short periods in there were during my second stay there, and we certainly had a few short conversations about our musical struggles...haha. Definitely a good guy - I hope he is doing okay. In any case, he has lasted longer this third time than either of his first two times. :)